Andrew Monkhouse

The plaintiff law firm sought an assessment of its legal fees in the amount of $25,165.63 against its former client, who had retained the firm on a contingency fee basis for a wrongful dismissal claim.

The client terminated the retainer after the firm made several errors, including naming the wrong parties and discontinuing the action against one defendant without instructions.

The court found the firm's account to be unreasonable, noting the lack of first-hand evidence from the timekeepers, vague docket entries, and billing for time after the retainer was terminated.

Applying the Cohen factors, the court assessed the fair and reasonable value of the legal services at $2,000.

The defendants in a class action brought a motion seeking the production of class counsel's redacted dockets to respond to the plaintiffs' costs submissions following certification.

The plaintiffs opposed the production.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the production of dockets to support costs submissions on a motion is only ordered in exceptional cases to protect solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the substantial amount of costs claimed, the disparity between the parties' costs, and alleged incongruities in the costs outline did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting production.

In a class action regarding unpaid vacation and public holiday pay, the plaintiffs moved to settle a discovery plan, and the defendants brought a cross-motion to amend the certified common issues and approve an alternative discovery plan.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding their proposed discovery plan to be disproportionate, unnecessary, and abusive.

The court granted the defendants' cross-motion, amending the common issues to reflect the actual scope of the action and approving the defendants' more proportionate discovery plan.

In a certified class action regarding unpaid vacation and public holiday pay, the plaintiffs moved to settle a discovery plan, and the defendants brought a cross-motion to amend the certified common issues and approve an alternative discovery plan.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding their proposed discovery plan to be disproportionate, unnecessary, and abusive, as it sought extensive electronic searches and oral discovery beyond the scope of the common issues.

The court granted the defendants' cross-motion, approving their revised common issues and their more proportionate discovery plan.

In a class action regarding unpaid vacation and public holiday pay, the plaintiffs moved to settle a discovery plan, and the defendants brought a cross-motion to amend the certified common issues and approve an alternative discovery plan.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding their proposed discovery plan to be disproportionate, unnecessary, and overly broad.

The court granted the defendants' cross-motion, amending the common issues to reflect the actual scope of the claims and approving the defendants' more focused discovery plan.

The plaintiff, a warehouse employee of 13.5 years, sued for wrongful dismissal after the defendant outsourced its warehouse operations.

The plaintiff declined an offer of employment from the outsourcing company before his termination took effect.

The court held that the plaintiff did not fail to mitigate his damages because the alternative job offer was made and withdrawn prior to his actual termination.

The court awarded the plaintiff 12 months of reasonable notice and dismissed the claim for punitive damages.

The proposed representative plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against RBC Insurance Agency Ltd. and Aviva General Insurance Company for alleged failure to pay vacation and public holiday pay on variable compensation to Property & Casualty Insurance Advisors.

The court granted certification against RBC IA, finding some basis in fact for the claims and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court found the proposed representative plaintiff's claim against Aviva General was presumptively statute-barred and conditionally certified the action against Aviva General, allowing 100 days to find a new representative plaintiff.

The plaintiff and the defendant Tofield Pizza Hut consented to a motion to remove Tofield Pizza Hut from a proposed employment misclassification class action.

The plaintiff accepted that Tofield Pizza Hut did not misclassify its delivery drivers as independent contractors.

The court granted the motion, finding that the dismissal would not prejudice the prospective class as no putative class member had a viable claim against this specific defendant.

The parties settled a wrongful dismissal action for $15,000 but could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought costs, while the defendant argued no costs should be awarded due to the plaintiff's conduct and the small settlement amount.

The court found the defendant fought the case aggressively and that a plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action should reasonably expect partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $30,000 in costs, inclusive of a $3,000 deduction for the defendant's costs of finalizing the settlement.

At a case conference in a certified class action, the parties discussed scheduling upcoming motions.

The plaintiff sought to amend the Statement of Claim to add unjust enrichment, which the defendants opposed as it could impact the certification analysis.

The defendants proposed a motion to decertify the action due to a low number of class members.

The court scheduled the decertification motion for April 2023 and directed the plaintiff to defer their motion to amend until after the decertification motion is decided.

Following a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action where the plaintiff recovered $17,587.11, both parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought $35,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the defendant sought $17,387.88 in costs thrown away.

The court noted that both parties had advanced and subsequently abandoned serious, unsubstantiated allegations during the litigation.

Given the conduct of both parties and the plaintiff's recovery falling within the Small Claims Court monetary jurisdiction, the court ordered no costs to either party.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes, approve a $105,000 settlement, and approve class counsel fees and a representative plaintiff honorarium.

The class action alleged that the defendants misclassified event staffing workers as independent contractors rather than employees, depriving them of minimum employment standards.

The court certified the action for settlement purposes, finding the criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable given the significant risk of non-recovery due to the corporate defendant ceasing operations.

Class counsel fees of $50,454.50 plus disbursements were approved, and the representative plaintiff was awarded a $4,000 honorarium.

The plaintiff, a dental hygienist, was dismissed without cause after less than six months of employment.

She brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages.

The defendant employer alleged she had fabricated evidence of her job search to prove mitigation.

The court found the employer failed to prove the mitigation fraud allegation.

Applying the Waksdale rule, the court held the employment contract's termination clause was void because its 'for cause' provision violated the Employment Standards Act.

The court awarded a three-month notice period and declined to deduct the plaintiff's CERB payments from the damages award.

Following a decision permanently staying the plaintiffs' second action for abuse of process, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity, finding that the defendants' Rule 49 offer was not beaten and the plaintiffs' fraud claim was never adjudicated.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the requested amounts by 25% to account for issues that were deferred to a potential future motion.

Costs were fixed at $34,608 for the main group of defendants and $13,722 for Dr. Kajdehi.

The plaintiff moved for certification of a class action alleging that insurance sales agents, known as 'producers', were misclassified by the defendants as independent contractors rather than employees.

The defendants opposed certification, arguing that the proposed class lacked commonality and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because the current arrangement financially benefited most producers.

The court found that the criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met, noting that the core issue of misclassification was common to the class and that a class action was preferable to individual claims or Ministry of Labour complaints.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The plaintiff commenced a wrongful dismissal action in 2015 against his former employer, which was stayed when the employer declared bankruptcy.

In 2019, the plaintiff commenced a second action against the bankrupt employer and several new defendants, alleging oppression, common employer, and improper transfer of assets.

The newly added defendants moved to strike or stay the second action.

The court permanently stayed the second action as an abuse of process, finding that it improperly circumvented the comprehensive regime of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for challenging asset transfers, as well as the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the addition of parties to an existing action.

The plaintiffs, former employees who received variable compensation, brought a proposed class action against their former employer for unpaid vacation and public holiday pay.

The employer admitted to miscalculating the pay and made remedial payments for the two years prior to discovery, but relied on the Limitations Act to deny older claims.

The plaintiffs moved for certification and the defendants cross-moved for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding limitation periods and releases.

The court also dismissed the certification motion, concluding that while the first three criteria were met, a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because individual issues trials regarding limitation periods and releases were inevitable and would not be advanced by a common issues trial.

A case conference was held to establish a timetable for the next steps in the proceeding.

Two of the three defendants were in default, and the remaining defendant was self-represented.

The court set a timetable for affidavits of documents, discoveries, and a pre-trial, and directed that another judge conduct the pre-trial.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding her termination.

After her position became redundant, the parties agreed to ten weeks of working notice.

The employer breached this agreement after five weeks, alleging job abandonment, and the trial judge awarded the appellant the remaining five weeks' pay.

On appeal, the appellant argued the agreement lacked consideration and its breach constituted rescission entitling her to common law notice.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the agreement valid and the breach a repudiation rather than rescission, as the appellant had already received half the benefit of the contract.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim with leave to amend, the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of $51,710.82.

The court found no basis for substantial indemnity costs and considered the partial indemnity claim of $34,100.37 excessive due to over-lawyering.

Taking into account the plaintiff's recent termination and lack of severance, the court fixed costs at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable in the cause.